Innovating with rural stakeholders in the developing word : action research in partnership

(1)

Innovating with rural stakeholders

in the developing world

Action research in partnership

Innovating with rural stakeholders in the developing world: Action r

esear ch in partnership G. Faur e, P . Gasselin, B. T riomphe, L. T emple, H. Hocdé

G. Faure, P. Gasselin, B. Triomphe,

L. Temple, H. Hocdé –

scientific editors

the theoretical background to action research in partnership in the field of agriculture and putting it into practice. The key intermediate steps and milestones of the approach are presented and discussed. The initial step – defining the problem and structuring the team that brings together all stakeholders – is crucial to the success of subsequent activities. The processes and methods that allow all stakeholders to be actively involved in the design, planning, monitoring and evaluation of results are described, as are those related to assessing the relevance of the results in terms of knowledge produced, capacity building of the actors or problem solving. The book draws on a wide range of experiences in agriculture and rural development in developing countries, and especially in Africa and Latin America. Together, they illustrate how practitioners have responded to the challenges of implementing an approach that has to be tailored and fine-tuned to the specificities of each situation .

This book is intended for researchers and professionals working in the field of rural development. Representatives of rural and farmers’ organizations in developing countries, often dealing with complex development challenges, will also find it useful.

About the authors:

Guy Faure, economist at CIRAD, conducts research on supporting

producers and producer organizations through partnerships in Africa and Latin America.

Pierre Gasselin, agronomist and geographer at INRA, conducts research

in Latin America and France in situations of pluriactivity and sectoral or regional crises.

Bernard Triomphe, agronomist at CIRAD, focuses on interfacing

technogical change with innovation processes and systems, in Latin America and Africa.

Ludovic Temple, economist at CIRAD, focuses his research on institutional

and organizational determinants of technological change in food chains, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.

Henri Hocdé, system agronomist at CIRAD has dedicated many years to

building up farmers’ capacity for innovation in Latin America and Africa.

Innovating with rural

stakeholders in the

developing world

Action research in partnership

(2)

in the developing world

Action research in partnership

G. Faure, P. Gasselin, B. Triomphe, L. Temple and H. Hocdé Scientific editors

(3)

nutritional security, increase prosperity and encourage sound natural resource management in ACP countries. It provides access to information and knowl-edge, facilitates policy dialogue and strengthens the capacity of agricultural and rural development institutions and communities. CTA operates under the framework of the Cotonou Agreement and is funded by the EU.

For more information on CTA, visit www.cta.int

CTA Postbox 380, 6700 AJ, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

LM Publishers Velperbuitensingel 8

6828 CT Arnhem, The Netherlands www.lmpublishers.nl

info@lmpublishers.nl ISBN: 978 94 6022 345 5

La recherche-action en partenariat, 2010

Éditions Quæ: RD 10, 78026 Versailles Cedex, France Presses agronomiques de Gembloux, 2, Passage des Déportés, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium

Éditions Cemagref, Cirad, Ifremer, Inra www.quae.com

(4)

Foreword

Agricultures tropicales en poche is a recent collection of practical

hand-books in French divided into three broad categories: animal produc-tion, plant producproduc-tion, and cross-disciplinary topics. Some of its titles, like this one, are also available in English as part of the Tropical

Agriculturist series.

These manuals are meant primarily for agricultural producers, tech-nicians, and consultants. They are also useful as reference material for those working in the technical services, students in institutions of higher education and those involved in rural development pro-grammes and organizations.

This book, on action research in partnership, fall within the collection’s cross-disciplinary category. It addresses an important aspect of the changes taking place in field research for improved response to social demands. This approach has a dual objective:

– On the one hand, a greater involvement of rural stakeholders in research processes, i.e., in defining goals, in executing activities, and in evaluating results;

– And, on the other, involving researchers in field activities alongside their rural partners.

This book not only presents information and basic concepts in a very practical way, it also develops and illustrates methods and tools per-taining to action research in partnership. It proposes a new research approach tackling the increasingly complex problems confronting rural development stakeholders. It thus prepares the reader to better address complex situations requiring interactions with a diversity of stakeholders.

The proposed approach is fully in line with systemic approaches that were successful in the 1980s and 1990s, but it goes far beyond them in several ways and tries to overcome their lacunae and shortcomings. It has been truly satisfying to witness research teams extending today the work done in the past. Their ethical standards, in particular, are more stringent and are better spelled out. We can but salute this change in attitude on the part of committed researchers. While it does not lead to an increase in scientific publications, it is far more respectful towards and meaningful for their research partners. Moreover, the authors do not gloss over the difficulties, limitations, and pitfalls of such approaches.

(11)

This book has been written by a capable group of authors with varied backgrounds and profiles. A point worth emphasizing is that their discussions during the phases of drafting, writing, and correcting the text were sustained and fruitful. The result is a text that shines with the interdisciplinary richness of their diverse experiences. We thank and congratulate each member of this group and in particular the scientific editors for their teamwork – which in itself is a glowing example of effective partnership.

Philippe Lhoste, Chief editor of the Agricultures tropicales en poche collection

(12)

Foreword

In this publication scientists engaged in partnership with farmers and other stakeholders in agricultural research and development (ARD) in the South have, in this publication, elaborated these experiences into a conceptual and analytical framework, which will support the further development of ARD practice by a host of professionals. They show how bringing different types of knowledge in action can create new knowledge and competencies. The scientists not only appreciate traditional or local knowledge but obviously also local creativity and capabilities as well.

The path taken towards action research in partnership described here has many parallels with the one followed in Anglophone ARD, growing out of an analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of Farming Systems Research and Extension in the 1970s and 80s. Scientists recognised that smallholder farmers could and should be partners in analysing their own situation, in conducting research and in analysing results. Over the past couple of decades, this recognition has led to diverse forms of participatory research, including Participatory Technology Development (PTD), in which scientists and farmers carry out joint experimentation to develop technologies appropriate to local condi-tions. The PTD approach was based on learning from the practical experiences of primarily non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working with farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The concept was synthesised during a workshop in the Netherlands in 1988. It chal-lenged the conventional paradigm of transferring technology from research through extension to farmers. It appreciated that farmers are innovators and researchers in their own right. Only slowly did PTD gain recognition in mainstream ARD. After further experience and reflection, it evolved into “Participatory Innovation Development” (PID), encompassing the development of not only “hard” technologies but also “soft” innovations such as in social organisation.

The initial theory to underpin the practice of PTD and later PID lay in the concept of Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS): creating synergies between multiple stakeholders who make complementary contributions to concerted innovative action in agri-culture. This was further developed in the writings on Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS), promoted most recently by the World Bank, which emphasises the role of actors beyond the triangle of researchers,

(13)

extensionists and farmers to include other relevant stakeholders such as the private sector. We are now witnessing various initiatives to bring together learning alliances and multi-stakeholder platforms for change, involving people from different types of groups and institu-tions concerned with ARD at international, regional and national level.

So, too, in a similar but not identical process in Francophone coun-tries – with only occasional cross-fertilisation with developments in the Anglophone sphere – scientists and NGOs seeking to make agri-cultural research more beneficial for smallholders have been exploring ways to move research out of the stations and laboratories into the real world of farming in the South. This book traces the transition from research controlled by scientists –even when implemented in the field, with the objective of understanding actors’ motivations and processes – to a partnership in ARD. In this partnership, all actors – not only the scientists – develop a better understanding and create new knowledge through their collaboration in research, including joint analysis. It reveals how the intensive interaction of scientists with other partners working together in farmers’ reality leads to more relevant and appli-cable research results.

The focus on partnership allows more deliberate attention to the pro-cess of building the alliances of different actors at the field level and to the issues of ethics and governance involved in this collaboration. The result is likely to be a more equitable form of partnership that strengthens the capacity of the actors – especially the farmers – to influence decision-making in the research at hand but also at other levels of decision-making about ARD. These other levels are crucially important. Even effective partnerships require conducive institutional contexts and framework conditions, such as remunerative markets, access to services and inputs, and active control of extractive practices and corruption, to be of benefit to their participants. Effective multi-stakeholder processes in ARD are necessary, but not enough.

It is encouraging to see that once more, following a rich tradition, scientists in Francophone ARD institutions emphasize the relevance and effectiveness of scientists’ engagement in supporting innovation processes on the ground. In their conclusions, the authors of this booklet are asking questions very similar to those being explored by the international Prolinnova network (www.prolinnova.net) in its

(14)

attempts to promote PID in agriculture and natural resource manage-ment, and by the Convergence of Science (CoS) partnership of West African universities with Wageningen University in the Netherlands. We welcome the opportunity for joint exploration of these issues in closer collaboration with Francophone ARD institutions in both South and North in the coming years.

Anglophone researchers in the South and the North are becoming increasingly aware that it is by strengthening agricultural innovation systems – the linkages and processes of interaction among multiple and diverse stakeholders – that family farming will be able to adapt more quickly to changing biological, social, institutional and political conditions, including climate change. The experience, insight and con-ceptual framework offered in this publication could enrich thinking and action among actors in ARD also in non-francophone areas. It is therefore to be hoped that it will soon become available also in other languages.

Ann-Waters-Bayer Niels Röling

ETC-PROLINNOVA Professor Emeritus Communication The Netherlands and Innovation Studies

Wageningen University The Netherlands

(15)

(16)

Introduction

The ability of research and development in the agricultural and agro-food sector to meet current social demands and to contribute to sustainable development and poverty alleviation is increasingly being called into question.

These doubts, while not new, have encouraged the implementation of participatory approaches that involve stakeholders of the rural world (producers, organizations, businesses, associations, technicians, local communities, etc.) to define research or development goals, in the execution of activities, and in evaluating results.

While action research in partnership (ARP), the subject of this book, is based on knowledge drawn from other participatory approaches, it has a broader objective. Not only does it try to get researchers to help solve problems faced by stakeholders, it also endeavors to involve the researchers in the action itself.

This requires a disciplined approach which meets the expectations of the various participants and which guarantees validated final results, all within a framework of a negotiated partnership in which each stakeholder’s role is clearly defined for every stage of the approach. This development in research practices is essential to better co-design and support the technical and organizational innovations required for overcoming complex challenges.

The number of initiatives that bring researchers and development stakeholders together is increasing rapidly at the international level and in the agriculture of the South in particular. Numerous teams and institutions of the North and the South are participating in them. Lessons learned and knowledge acquired from these experiments form the basis of this book.

Objectives

This book’s objective is to help raise the awareness of research and development stakeholders and to prepare them for implementing ARP approaches and practices. In a more general way, this book presents keys to reflection and action for improving the relevance and effectiveness of operations and research practices with stakeholders in the domains of agriculture and agro-food, the environment, and, more generally, rural development in the countries of the South.

(17)

By combining theoretical inputs, the presentation of a generic approach, reflections on the different components of ARP, and the analysis of case studies, this book provides a conceptual and methodo-logical frame of reference for understanding and implementing ARP. This book is aimed at a non-specialist audience:

– Researcher-practitioners and development stakeholders such as technicians, elected officials and representatives of professional or non-governmental organizations already engaged in research with stakeholders and who want to evaluate or improve their practices; – Researchers and technicians who want to improve the relevance and effectiveness of their activities in supporting innovation processes ; – Funding agencies and project or institutional managers who would like research and projects involving ARP be implemented more often; – Students and teachers of agricultural and social science courses relating to issues of development, innovation processes, and relations between research and civil society.

Contents

This book introduces and discusses the following topics:

– References to the original concepts of and subsequent empirical advances in the knowhow and implementation of action research; – Knowledege, methods and fundamental tools for better imple-menting ARP in situations that are complex because of stakeholder diversity or because of the challenging issues involved;

– Illustrative examples drawn from ARP experiences;

– A discussion of the ARP approach’s limitations and the pitfalls to avoid;

– Recommendations to assist practitioners in their reflexive analysis. The first section outlines the history of different action-research approaches. It explains why a fresh way of undertaking research is required to address complex issues raised by civil society. It concludes by presenting some seminal principles underlying an ARP and by dis-cussing its different phases.

The second part focuses on the central issue of constituting the part-nership that will form the basis for undertaking future activities. It stresses the importance of taking into account the different strategies of each type of stakeholder and of learning to manage the asymmetries inherent in any partnership to establish trust and maintain a dialog. An example drawn from an experiment in Brazil illustrates these points.

(18)

The third section presents the ARP approach by highlighting mecha-nisms for managing the approach by all the concerned stakeholders. Methods and tools are introduced using case studies and the lessons to be learned from them. Special attention is given to managing col-lectives and to communication between stakeholders. These points are illustrated by describing an experience in Burkina Faso.

The fourth section is devoted to analyzing the results of ARP, reaching beyond the mere creation of knowledge useful to solve a problem. It also addresses the issue of the evaluation of activities and results by the stakeholders.

In the fifth and final section, two strategic aspects in the implementa-tion of an ARP are presented: ARP training, initial as well as ongoing, and the modalities of funding of projects and corresponding activities. This book is not a manual nor does it present a cookbook approach to be applied step by step. Each section emphasizes the generic aspect of the proposed approach and the diversity of possible choices. Also high-lighted are the strategic questions that will help direct implementation, in a necessarily unique manner, of ARP that fulfills the requirements of the specific context and historical background of the stakeholders and their environment.

Each section or chapter can be read independently. The index, cross-references, and the glossary will help the reader navigate the text.

(19)

(20)

Foundations of action

research in partnership

(21)

(22)

originestothepresent

N.-E. Sellamna

The history of the emergence of action research begins when researchers stopped being satisfied with merely creating knowl-edge and began to do so to help resolve important social issues in a practical manner. “If you want to truly understand some-thing, try to change it.” This famous line from Lewin (1958), acknowledged as the pioneer of action research, succinctly encapsulates one of its fundamental characteristics, that of combining knowledge and action in the same approach.

At the same time, the term “action research” reveals its ambiguity because any research activity, not only action research, can potentially contribute to short- or long-term changes. To address this challenge, we will try to better specify the theoretical and methodological founda-tions of action research by discussing its disciplinary contexts and the diversity of approach types.

Action research finds its roots in psycho-sociology, sociology, and anthropology. It was subsequently deployed in disciplines such as medicine, education, economics, history, communications, and, what interests us here, agronomy and animal production in the context of agricultural development.

Virtually all disciplines today refer, in one way or another, to the prac-tice of action research, as can be seen from the plethora of terms in use: action research, action anthropology, dialogical research, commu-nity research, action learning, collaborative action research, or action science. The French-speaking world talks about recherche-action

expé-rimentale, recherche-action participative, recherche-action stratégique or recherche-intervention.

The sections that follow describe different types of action research used in specific professional, conceptual, or geographical contexts.

(23)

Origins of action research

The term “action research” goes back to the 1940s and to the work of Lewin in psycho-sociology, on personal changes (for example, in the study of food habits) or social changes (for example, in the study of racial prejudice), and on learning processes.

The basic postulate was that knowledge and the taking of cognitive or mental processes into account at the collective level are a primary vector of social change. The corresponding research is undertaken in an experimental context with the help of an “agent of change” (who today we would call a “facilitator”) responsible for shaping the meth-odological framework and for managing and driving the process. The group is where individuals learn to overcome obstacles to change by modifying their behavior, attitudes, perceptions, and representations. For Lewin, an understanding of group life leads to an understanding of the conditions and the identification of the force fields that enable or prevent change. Thus, the experience and learning of individuals within an experimental group creates a context conducive to change. This context can, subsequently, be transferred to other locations with a consequent wider social impact.

Criticisms and evolution of action research

Lewin’s approach was successfully put to use in fields such as educa-tion, industry, and community development.

It was also subjected to criticism. First and foremost, some proposi-tions, according to which change was assumed to be a question of individual learning and the obstacles to change a mere lack of infor-mation, were contested. These propositions assumed in effect that all prejudices, stereotypes, resistances, and power relationships would disappear thanks to information, which itself was considered neutral. A second criticism was leveled at action research’s linear and opti-mistic vision of an inevitable progress once “forces” opposing it were overcome. Moreover, Lewin’s action research was a process controlled by one or more external researchers, specialists in social sciences, working with their own objectives, or intervening as consultants to resolve a set of problems.

From this criticism was born the distinction between “internal researchers” and “external researchers,” especially in the education

(24)

field, where, interestingly, it was even claimed that educational action research could be undertaken without the intervention of any researcher. According to Lapassade (1993), in such a context, “It is the teachers who themselves conduct the research, sometimes in con-junction with consultants external to their establishment […].”

At the same time, the concept of emancipatory action research appeared, very similar to the concept of empowerment used by other authors such as Freire (1969). These two concepts correspond to the observation that practitioners conducting this research “from the inside” enter a cycle of reflection and evaluation of their own prac-tices. This cycle leads to the introduction of innovative practices when compared with the hidebound bureaucratic and coercive habits that normally govern their domain.

Action research in the development field

Numerous researchers working in the domain of community develop-ment, empowerment of rural organizations, and adult education refer to an emancipatory type of action research, implicit in the term “par-ticipatory action research.”

Such approaches were developed in several countries, most notably in Brazil in the 1960s (Freire, 1969), in Colombia in the 1960s and 1970s (Fals-Borda and Rahman, 1991) and in Tanzania in the 1970s (Hall, 1974).

These efforts had an aim in common. This was to change to change the power relationships between rural populations and policy makers. They began with the observation that conventional sociological or anthropological research, even the classical action research of Lewin, was unsuccessful in resolving conflicts related to the involvement of local populations in development. It sometimes even served the inter-ests of the powers-that-be to prolong or consolidate the established order.

The Italian philosopher Gramsci (1953) introduced the notion of “organic intellectuals” produced by all human groups. These organic intellectuals are defined more by their political- or technical-man-agement role in their social environment than by the nature of their work. In rural areas, everyone can thus become an intellectual in his own environment, rural inhabitants as well as scientists, and everyone has some knowledge that, once valorized and used, can contribute to social change. Conversely, these approaches demystify the scientists’

(25)

role and position, supposedly neutral and independent, yet play a role in the dominant system.

For his part, Freire (1969) contributes the concept of man as subject. According to him, education of the oppressed people should arise from their own initiative. The educators’ role is to help them develop a critical reflection (“conscientize” them) so that they can understand the sources of their oppression and unite to put an end to it.

Action research in agriculture

Systemic analysis also had a significant impact on the action-research approaches used in the agricultural domain because of its ability to take into account interactions between different elements of a system to explain the system’s functioning and causal relationships.

Remember that systemic research is the basis of approaches such as development research (Jouve and Mercoiret, 1987), agrarian systems (Mazoyer and Roudard, 1997) and farming systems (Norman and Collinson, 1985), which were in vogue in the 1970s.

These approaches were put into practice for different reasons. Some had the aim of promoting technology transfers. Others focused on characterizing in some detail the diversity and complexity of farms by placing the farmer and his family, considered as rational actors, at the heart of the analysis of the production process.

Taken as a whole, these approaches promoted the idea that research should accompany changes in existing agricultural societies and should strengthen their ability to adapt themselves to constraints or to seize opportunities. According to these approaches, research can no longer be satisfied by proposing agricultural production models and tech-nologies developed in the industrialized world for adoption in very different contexts.

The conceptual connections between systemic research and action research are therefore quite pronounced. Thus, as noted by Robo (1996), “Action research belongs to a systemic and multi-referen-tial approach. It affects all factors that play a role in the object of research, thus minimizing the relative importance of any one of them in particular.”

In addition, at a practical level, several systemic- or research-develop-ment approaches have there as objective technical, social, or organiza-tional change and, in general, they call for the participation of users or

(26)

beneficiaries in the research process. They mobilize various methods to take the diversity of farmers into consideration and frequently trans-late into practice in the form of real-world experiments (Chambers, 1997).

In the 1980s and 1990s, work by Röling (1990) and his colleagues from Wageningen University in the Netherlands provided another illustration of the strong links between systems research and action research. Their approach, known as AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems), consists of analyzing information and knowledge as constituents of a system. The participants can model this system using qualitative methods and, in particular, graphical representation. These models help clarify, and allow comparisons of, perceptions and implicit visions of all sides. On this basis, the partici-pants develop plans of action to solve the identified problem and arrive at a model of change acceptable at the cultural and systemic levels. In spite of their many similarities, in many ways system research is quite different from action research: priority accorded to knowledge crea-tion over accrea-tion, the absence of explicit mechanisms to promote par-ticipation by all stakeholders in the research, and insufficient emphasis on the practice of “reflexivity,” i.e., the actors’ capacity to reflect in an ongoing way on methodological choices and the results obtained.

Action research in all its forms

We see, therefore, as Perrenoud (1988) remarked, “The multiplicity of forms of action research results from the diversity of situations, of the partners, and of the contracts that link them.” In each period and in each environment, action-research approaches have been influ-enced and revitalized by “dominant” disciplines: psycho-sociology in the 1940s, sociology (of organizations, of work) in the 1950s, political sciences in the 1960s, systems theory and educational sciences in the 1970s, and, more recently, management sciences.

Geography too plays a role in influencing the various forms of action research. Thus, in the United Kingdom, action research is very actively undertaken in the educational domain with emphasis on improving educational practices. In the United States, it is firmly established in the domain of social well-being and strives for social change, and is linked to citizen activism and community organization, with researchers involved in the causes that their research defends. In the French-speaking world, action research finds full expression in the

(27)

educational domain and also in rural development (Chia, 2004). It bor-rows heavily not only from systemic research but also from business-management sciences.

Figure 1 is a simplified representation of the diversity of action-research types, a diversity that is as much theoretical and thematic as it is geographical.

Figure 1 .Differenttypesofactionresearch .

Vision of social change

Change as personal problem; innovation as a change in attitudes and values Change as social problem; innovation as consensual decision making Change as a problem of adapting techniques to a complex environment; innovation as a search for the best Change as problem of a multiciplity of percep-tions; innovation as a collective expertise of stakeholders Change as political problem; innovation as an issue of power relationships Change as a recon-ciliation of various but convergent interests; innovation as synergy of skills Action-research framework Social experiment transferred to a real environment Involvement of stakeholders in the undertaking of research; participation, emancipation Analysis of systems (production, agrarian) and experimenta-tion in real condiexperimenta-tions, interdisciplinarity

Collective co-learning, condition for adapting to the changes in environment

Involvement of the sub-jects of research in the process via a sharing of responsibilities Creation of collaboration platforms with definition of common problem-sets, sharing of resources, and processes of collective learning

A-R Approaches

Conventional action research

New action research

Development research, Farming Systems Research, Client-Oriented Research, Diagnostic and Design, Agro-ecoSystems Analysis, etc.

Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems, Farmer Field School, Livelihood Systems Approach

Participatory Learning and Action Research, Participatory Technology Development, Participa-tory Plant Breeding Action research in part-nership, agricultural research for develop-ment, Integrated Agricultural Research for Development

(28)

Action research in partnership

In the face of this diversity of approaches, it is time that we specify what is meant by “action research in partnership” (ARP) in this book. ARP is a form of action research that has a threefold objective: producing new knowledge, resolving a problem identified by the stakeholders, and building the capacities of these stakeholders for an increased autonomy and self-sufficiency.

Like any action research, it is based on four principles: – A combination of a will to change and a research intent;

– The dual objective of resolving the problem at hand and of advancing basic knowledge;

– The concerted effort of researchers and stakeholders on the ground; – An ethical framework negotiated and accepted by all.

The term “partnership” emphasizes the fact that it is a collective that is undertaking the action research. The partnership is a grouping of different stakeholders who preserve their independence but who share human and material resources, either through self-interest or by obli-gation, to achieve the shared goal of resolving a particular problem.

(29)

(30)

researchinpartnership?

P. Gasselin and P. Lavigne Delville

Before we can discuss how to undertake action research in partnership, we have to ask: why do it at all? This chapter provides answers.

Both in its philosophy and in its approach, ARP breaks with the conventional modalities of agricultural and rural develop-ment research. It aspires to respond to the new requiredevelop-ments of research, to be more suited to society’s demands and needs, as well as to the evolving relationships between practitioners, citizens, users, and researchers. It aims to structure the research and action processes together, a co-production of knowledge and solutions by researchers and stakeholders.

Such an ambition depends on cooperation between professional researchers and stakeholders striving to create the dynamics of change. ARP requires the establishment of partnerships between the different stakeholders and a joint management of the research process.

Main justifications

Why would researchers conduct an ARP with farmers? Why would social stakeholders collaborate with researchers in undertaking a pro-ject to transform rural society? Why would businesses and territorial communities invest resources in research? These questions have been the subject of several studies in philosophy, educational sciences, soci-ology, history of sciences, management sciences, and other disciplines. Most of the answers advanced are not specific to the agricultural world, but can be derived from the wider evolution affecting society and science.

ARP justifies itself on two broad fronts. The first relates to the socio-political domain: the role of knowledge creation in the processes of change and the relationships that researchers have with practitioners, users, and citizens. The second relates to the epistemological domain: the design of knowledge and of science. The “action” aspect and social utility of knowledge is as important as the “knowledge creation” aspect.

(31)

xxw

New legitimacy of stakeholders and their knowledge

New questions for agricultural research

Changes observed in the last three decades in rural development and the new roles played by agriculture (market or non-market, polit-ical, economic, social, environmental) add impetus to the questions addressed by agricultural research.

These questions, which were predominantly technical, “What tech-niques should be invented and widely disseminated to help farmers in their activities?” became, in the 1990s, socio-technical: “Why aren’t the techniques offered being used? How to ensure their adoption?” Today the paradigm has shifted still further: “How to initiate innovation processes that meet the requirements of the concerned stakeholders?” At the same time, it is increasingly being accepted that stakeholders affected by a problem – farmers, their professional organizations, businesses in the concerned sector, public authorities – have a legiti-mate right to question the work of researchers on agricultural and rural issues and to actually participate in tackling problems that may arise. According to some authors (Akrich et al., 1988; Callon et al., 2001), their participation actually increases the chance of resolving the problem. The question then arises: how best to integrate them into the research process?

Scientific knowledge is not neutral

Changes in the rural sector are related to wider changes in the design of science and its relationship with society. In the 1990’s, these changes marked a break with a redefinition of the role of the stakeholders. The idea of an neutral and objective science, capable by itself of defining problems, of being able to handle complex issues (for example, “What is a drug?,” “What is a microbe?” or “What is an animal’s well-being?”) and to identify solutions, was being increasingly called into question (Stengers, 2002).

Some of the answers do depend on the political, socio-economic, and cultural context and on the strategies of the stakeholders concerned. Production of knowledge or the creation of a new technology cannot be envisaged without assessing its impact on the real world, especially the risks that may be introduced.

This position requires not only the researcher but also the judge, the journalist, the philosopher, the elected official, the consumer, and the

(32)

citizens to develop their own analyzes for participating in defining problems and identifying solutions. Nuclear accidents and agricultural, food, health, environmental crises, for example, require society to be more than a research sponsor or beneficiary. Society has to be respon-sible and make science everyone’s affair by organizing the participa-tion of all stakeholders in an extension of the democratic ideal. Competent stakeholders with legitimate knowledge and concerns Another major change is helping redefine the relationships between science and society. Science has long claimed to objectivize facts by creating knowledge that is different from “profane” knowledge, espe-cially the knowledge of the concerned stakeholders (inevitably local-ized, biased due to social structures or their own agenda).

Today, an epistemological and social revolution has lead to the reali-zation that the knowledge and skills of stakeholders have value in resolving a given problem. This can be collective knowledge, including that of organizations, institutions, technical services, or knowledge of individuals such as professionals, owners of specific expertise (farmers, technicians, entrepreneurs, craftsmen, workmen, etc.), or even citizens wanting to involve themselves in local public affairs. Their knowledge is practical in nature and does not replace scientific knowledge (Olivier de Sardan, 1995).

Researchers no longer have a monopoly on objectivity, using their research to distance themselves from the social world. The specific context also plays a determining role. Consequently, it is as much by the meeting of points of view and knowledge as by taking the real com-plexity into account that objectivity can be achieved. The skills of the stakeholders and the legitimacy of their concerns and knowledge are thus the underpinnings of a renewed scientific approach, of an “open-air science” which involves, or is even propelled by, the stakeholders concerned (Callon et al., 2001).

Research as a tool for learning and change

Stakeholders participation in defining and conducting the research process is also justified by social and political goals. Knowledge cre-ation then becomes an adjunct, sometimes even a pretext, for involving participants in cross learning and/or in helping bring about transfor-mations in social relationships (Freire, 1969; Touraine, 1978).

(33)

In such conditions, research can become a powerful tool to reinforce stakeholders’ legitimacy as well as bolster their initiative and their ability to be heard. It is a matter of deepening the knowledge of the problems and issues at hand, of triggering a wider dialog that leads to a recogni-tion of the problem being experienced by certain stakeholders, and of engaging collective processes of research and validation of solutions. In this context, ARP appears as an approach for a simultaneous production of knowledge and of new social relationships which are the result of a will to change and a research intent (Liu, 1997).

Researchers’ involvement in an ARP can also be taken to be a volun-tary approach for deeper interactions with stakeholders in the interest of bringing about changes and for a willingness to adopt values shared with the ARP collective (see Chapter 3 “Fundamental principles of an action-research partnership approach,” page 41). It is one way of translating ethical and political requirements.

xxw

A response to social actors’ new expectations

Social actors, whether they be considered citizens facing new prob-lems, professionals, or users of a space or a service, have concerns and expectations. When research is defined only by researchers, as is the case with conventional research and based on concerns that are not those of the actors, it can only partially be successful in meeting their expectations. Only incomplete results are usually forthcoming, they are often delivered late, and not always presented to stakeholders or converted into a form suitable for them. Consequently, the real utility of conventional research is often limited.

Participatory research goes a little further in the dialog, but often it does not discuss the definition of the problem itself. ARP, on the other hand, not only puts the problem’s definition up for discussion, but also the formulation of research topics and the structure of the research protocol. In addition, it includes a debate on the results. For these two reasons, it can arrive at responses more in line with stakeholder aspira-tions, which can, however, also be more demanding at times.

xxw

A need for effectiveness in an uncertain and complex

context

ARP also enhances research relevance and effectiveness in uncertain and complex contexts.

(34)

Alliance between social actors and researchers

Social actors and researchers need each other in order to confront modern challenges. Scientific practice is becoming more reflexive, i.e., it questions itself on its objectives, on the methods used, and on the way the results are obtained. Its own shortcomings and failures stare it in the face: the inability to identify in time major dangers such as asbestos, mad-cow disease, or AIDS; the controversies amongst sci-entists on genetically modified organisms (GMO); and the inability to resolve major social issues such as unemployment, poverty, rural exodus, or the food crisis.

It is therefore essential to improve the way complex social issues are addressed by researchers and actors each of whom cannot act without the other. Sometimes this improvement is radical and substantial, especially when the ARP arrives at a solution or knowledge that it could not have without the concerned stakeholders’ participation (a new equitable and efficient way of distributing irrigation water, for example). In other cases, this improvement cannot be objectively measured by its impact on society or on the knowledge base. In such cases, we content ourselves by describing the improvement in the col-laboration process by hypothesizing that progress has been made in the way complex issues are handled, solutions found, and innovations discovered (see part 4, page 157).

Shared definition of problems

The questions that social groups ask of science are generally complex. For example: What are the risks of growing a GMO in open fields? What will be the impact of simplified agricultural techniques on the labor that will be replaced? Such questions call into play several factors whose dynamics are often unknown. Modeling the complexity of inter-actions (social, ecological, economic, etc.) and their dynamic nature to be able to make predictions remains an illusory dream.

The problem and its solution almost always depend on stakeholder perceptions. It is therefore necessary to try to define in advance the issue at hand, in as consensual a manner as possible, and then to work towards a satisfactory solution in a transparent manner with the stake-holders concerned.

Latour (2001) thus recognizes that all technical knowledge or object is a social construct resulting from an ongoing research pro-cess. Approaches called constructivist are mobilized to handle this

(35)

complexity; their scientific validity is now acknowledged and recog-nized. At the same time, several studies confirm that one learns best when working in a real-world situation. Only in such environments do stakeholder strategies emerge and it becomes possible to assess the feasibility of proposals (Breilh, 1997; Touraine, 1978).

Partnerships put researchers in contact with innovation as it happens

In diffusionist approaches, a new technique is invented in a research laboratory and then transferred to the concerned users. On the other hand, innovation, both technical and organizational, takes place on the ground, by the trial and error of practitioners trying to improve their practices or resolve problems. We thus distinguish between invention and innovation.

Invention is when something new is thought up by researchers in laboratories or on test plots or by farmers in their fields. Innovation is the implementation of a new combination of factors and is therefore already practice in action (Chauveau et al., 1999).

Working in partnership puts researchers in situations where they can study innovation as it happens and even accompany invention within emerging groups themselves. In doing so, they are in the best posi-tion to detect and encourage the faintest signs of nascent technical or organizational innovations which could become more prominent in time.

In uncertain situations, the knowledge of the concerned stakeholders and scientific knowledge should both be mobilized via the establish-ment of partnerships. This will help make decisions for resolving real problems, in given contexts and whose character is never just technical but always includes economic and political dimensions. Resulting innovations are largely dependent on socio-economic and politico-institutional contexts in which they were (co)constructed, and which a linear, descendant, or diffusionist approach would not allow (Akrich

et al., 1988).

Research in partnership

A partnership can be thought of as a set of connections between stakeholders for combining resources around a project that has been

(36)

designed together for attaining shared goals (adapted from Lindeperg, 1999).

This broad definition covers various types of partnerships, in particular depending on:

– The categories of stakeholders involved: physical or legal persons, public or private institutions, producer organizations, businesses, asso-ciations, territorial communities, State administrations, etc.;

– The shared objectives, for example, value generation (economic partnership), knowledge and innovation production (research partner-ship), acquisition of capacity of action (operational partnerpartner-ship), or inequality reduction (social partnership);

– The type of links that are created between the stakeholders: more or less formalized, contractualized, cooperative, institutional, politicized, voluntary, opportunistic, etc.;

– The shared resources, such as workforce, skills, knowledge, position in a social network, equipment, money;

– The mode of co-construction, for example, each stakeholder’s place in the decision-making process (consultation, cooperation, co-decision, etc.), phase and type of the project concerned, methods to manage ten-sions and conflicts, or others.

The partnership therefore encompasses several realities. An ARP takes place when the following conditions are satisfied:

– It takes place between professional researchers and concerned actors or stakeholders and takes into consideration the knowledge of the citizens, of practitioners, or of users, their ability to generate knowledge, and the specific character of the researcher’s profession; – Its objectives are to act on the real world and produce together basic or applied knowledge in complex situations;

– It leads to relationships where stakeholders in different social and hierarchical institutional positions participate in the decision-making process thus becoming the authors of the action research, and not a relationship where stakeholders are just invited into a process decided upon without their participation (see Chapter 3, “Fundamental princi-ples of an action-research partnership approach,” page 41).

Amongst the many agricultural research approaches, the ARP is the one that lays emphasis on the willingness of researchers and other stake-holders to work together, to debate and negotiate common objectives, and to define an equitable framework for the relationships between all participants. It is therefore distinct from participatory research where farmers and other stakeholders are invited to “participate” in research

(37)

designed by others, without having any real power to influence choices and decisions, and where the diversity of viewpoints and interests is often underestimated (Lavigne Delville et al., 2000).

Summary

The ARP approach is therefore part of a vast movement that is redrawing the relationships that researchers and other actors have with knowledge, power, and action. It calls into question the double delegation (Callon et al., 2001) by which citizens, practitioners, and users delegate choices on issues that concern them to politicians on the one hand (via elections) and to experts (including researchers) on the other. Using some strong postulates, ARP recognizes and incorporates non-scientific knowledge, stimulates dialog between researchers and non-researchers on the same topics, and helps build the capacities of participants, researchers, and other stakeholders.

Knowledge is not always found where we expect it to be. Thus, “pop-ular” or “local knowledge,” technical knowledge, and institutional knowledge (found within organizations or produced via networks) are all diverse, rich, and dynamic. It is no longer the question of simple practices evolving as and when techniques and knowledge inspired from science are assimilated.

Innovation is a process where invention and its implementation are primarily the responsibility of the stakeholders concerned, who mobi-lize scientific and technical information in different ways (Bonneuil, 2004).

Researchers can no longer claim a monopoly of objectivity and knowledge. They cooperate with the other stakeholders in organ-ized approaches for comparing analyses and for jointly creating new knowledge. Defining an issue (or constructing a problem-set) for all the stakeholders is therefore an essential step in the ARP approach. ARP is thus an instrument to build stakeholders’ individual and collec-tive capacities. It allows them to adapt better to changing conditions, thanks to knowledge that they have learnt to mobilize and generate, to the new legitimacy that is conferred on them by participating in the research, and to the lessons learnt and experience gained in making decisions in complex situations.

By no means does this imply that all other forms of research are hence-forth rendered futile or stand discredited. For specifically identified

(38)

themes, the conventional thematic agricultural research is irreplace-able for its essential contributions. The dissemination of research find-ings, even indirectly, can help widen the frame of reference in which the stakeholders perceive their situation, analyze the problems that confront them, and experiment with solutions.

Similarly, research concerns can be legitimate even without responding directly to an identified societal need. But because it starts with a negotiation of the research and its goals, ARP is a priori a more suitable response to stakeholder needs and has therefore a greater effectiveness.

(39)

(40)

ofanaction-research

partnershipapproach

P. Gasselin and P. Lavigne Delville

Action research in partnership (ARP) proposes a specific way of linking researchers to action via the mobilization of a group of stakeholders, researchers, and other actors. This linkage is based on the four criteria (Liu, 1992) mentioned in Chapter 1, “Action research in partnership:”

– A combination of a research intent (researchers) and a will to change (non-researchers);

– A dual objective of resolving users’ problems and of advancing basic knowledge;

– A joint effort by researchers and other stakeholders; – An ethical framework negotiated and accepted by all.

Six major principles stemming from these four criteria characterize the ARP approach. They are quickly outlined in this chapter before being explored in detail in the following ones. Major crises and possible derailments that can result during the implementation of an ARP are presented at the end of this chapter.

Incorporating research into action

As already pointed out in Chapter 1, “Action research: from its origins to the present” (page 23), real-world action is conducive to knowledge discovery and production. ARP involves itself with action by aiming for a balance between knowledge production, problem resolution, and learning. This approach creates a structure for the entire process and leads to the emergence of a collective actor who helps define the issue and the problem-set, controls and directs the activities, and evaluates and monitors the approach.

Producing contextualized knowledge

The aim of research is to produce rigorous knowledge which is generic to some extent. On the one hand, research is based on a dialog and

(41)

back-and-forth iterations between a theoretical framework and con-cepts considered relevant. This allows it to assess and describe complex realities. On the other hand, it relies on empirical analyses based on observations, experimentation, and surveys. This allows theories and concepts to be tested, and their scope and limitations to be deter-mined, or even to be called into question.

To proceed, non-researchers not only require frameworks for analysis and general frames of reference, but also, and especially, precise knowledge concerning their environment and the processes at work in their own space.

The knowledge produced unites these two requirements. To be usable and useful to the stakeholders, it has to be local, contextualized, and has to be predominantly specific in nature. It frequently goes beyond the frontiers and categories of scientific disciplines to explain fully the multi-dimensional, complex processes.

However, it should also allow researchers to enrich general knowledge by extricating themselves from the specifics and particular contexts, and hence by going beyond the local and the empirical. The knowledge should thus gain a generic aspect and the researchers should be able to propose analyses with a wider validity.

Building together

ARP assumes that involved stakeholders (individuals and organiza-tions) will participate throughout the whole research process (Darré, 1997): defining the general problem, formulating goals and research topics, undertaking the action research, reflecting and assessing the results. It is different from other research processes in which collabo-ration between researchers and other stakeholders is restricted to just one or more research stages with ARP that the concept of partnership finds its full expression.

All the participants are not only “stakeholders” but also “co-authors” of the process, its results, and its evaluation (Albaladejo and Casabianca, 1997). Chapter 6, “Enrolling stakeholders and the role of researchers” (page 79), examines the conditions propitious to the emergence of this collective.

The various partnership modalities (see Chapter 2, “Why undertake action research in partnership?” on page 31) refer to corresponding forms of participation in conducting an ARP. In a true partnership, it

(42)

is assumed that the different actors will share in the decision-making process. Similarly, it is assumed that risks, responsibilities, benefits, and access to resources will also be divided amongst the partners. In such a scenario, the degree of involvement in the various stages often depends on the specific interest that the stakeholders have at a particular stage, the skills they can call upon, and other aspects. Stakeholder participation in an ARP includes levels of involvement that can be very different. They are, in increasing degrees of involvement: – Consultation using surveys and polls;

– Exchange of viewpoints;

– Building of a common vision (requiring a change in one’s initial analysis);

– Distribution of activities amongst project partners; – Sharing of responsibilities;

– Shared decision making, both for activities and their funding; – Taking of initiatives (representing a real desire to be involved). An ARP requires an equitable dialog between all stakeholders. However, a participant will not speak up or take responsibility as a planner of the ARP unless he or she finds some interest, has neces-sary resources and skills, and sufficient confidence in himself and his interlocutors.

Yet the different stakeholders are rarely on an equal footing at the launch of the process. Their ability to grasp the context, independently formulate a demand, or participate in negotiations are not the same (Albaladejo and Casabianca, 1995).

An ARP brings together categories of stakeholders with diverse inter-ests and at various social and institutional positions. It operates in a social context which is always complex, with dynamic relationships of power, exclusion, and cooperation. Sometimes conflicts can even be openly perceived (Chauveau and Lavigne Delville, 1998). Asymetries between the stakeholders frequently prevent an open dialog and often skew the cooperation (see Chapter 7, “Introducing action research in partnership rooted: the Unai project in Brazil,” page 97). Such is often the case, for example, in the asymmetries in technician-farmer relationships, caused primarily by an unequal mastery of the discourse. These situations call for specific procedures (Barthélémy et al., 2007), covered in greater detail in Chapter 8, “Governance mechanisms,” page 107, for constructing an environment in which power is more or

(43)

less in balance. Skills required to manage disparities and conflicts are indispensable for a real partnership. This is probably the most difficult aspect of managing an ARP.

Recognizing others’ knowledge and developing

a common language

The dialog between stakeholders requires the recognition of the validity and legitimacy of different knowledge types, irrespective of their origin or classification: profane, technical, scientific, institu-tional, etc. A priori, there is no hierarchical or dependent relationship between them. Stakeholder knowledge is no longer just an object for researchers to analyze but fuels the discussions and has relevance in arguments between different stakeholders and between stakeholders and researchers. Stakeholders contribute thus to the production of new knowledge, to the transformation of reality, and to learning pro-cesses. Specific procedures need to be called upon to promote this “dialog of knowledge” (see Chapter 9, “Operational mechanisms, methods, and tools,” page 121).

Yet, at the beginning, each participant speaks a different language. The methods of reading reality, of defining issues, are different (Castellanet and Jordan, 2002). Adopting a common language thus seems to be essential for stakeholders to be able to reflect and act together. They will be able to build a common culture, their own col-lective identity, share a certain “real-world view,” and be on the same page during their discussions.

Researchers and technicians in particular need to address these con-cerns. They have to make an effort to understand their interlocu-tors’ thought processes and preoccupations. By avoiding unnecessarily complicated terms and terminology, they can render their own ideas and their concepts accessible to other stakeholders. Finally, they have to widen their interest beyond that of their own discipline. Building together a common representation of the complex situation that is the object of an ARP is a good way of favoring the emergence of a common language. Other practices, presented in Chapter 6, “Enrolling stakeholders and the role of researchers” (page 79), facilitate the dialog.

Innovating with rural stakeholders in the developing word : action research in partnership

Innovating with rural stakeholders

in the developing world

Action research in partnership

G. Faure, P. Gasselin, B. Triomphe,

L. Temple, H. Hocdé –

Innovating with rural

stakeholders in the

developing world

Action research in partnership

in the developing world

Action research in partnership

Contents

Foreword

Foreword

Introduction

Foundations of action

research in partnership

origines﻿to﻿the﻿present

Origins of action research

Criticisms and evolution of action research

Action research in the development field

Action research in agriculture

Action research in all its forms

Action research in partnership

research﻿in﻿partnership?

Main justifications

xxw

New legitimacy of stakeholders and their knowledge

xxw

A response to social actors’ new expectations

xxw

A need for effectiveness in an uncertain and complex

context

Research in partnership

Summary

of﻿an﻿action-research﻿﻿

partnership﻿approach

Incorporating research into action

Producing contextualized knowledge

Building together

Recognizing others’ knowledge and developing

a common language

originestothepresent

researchinpartnership?

ofanaction-research

partnershipapproach